TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
RE: Dirty trick or fair play (was: RE: Honestly -- when an SME completely REWRITES your text ... GEEZ!)
Subject:RE: Dirty trick or fair play (was: RE: Honestly -- when an SME completely REWRITES your text ... GEEZ!) From:"Downing, David" <DavidDowning -at- users -dot- com> To:"McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:00:05 -0500
That was 16 years ago, so I don't remember clearly, but I don't believe
I was given the opportunity to add my own comments. Now, after 16 years,
if something like that happened, I wouldn't hesitate to ask to have a
comment of my own inserted, but at the time, since I was just starting
out, both in that job and in the field, I didn't want to give myself a
reputation as someone who argued with criticism and blamed others when I
did something wrong.
-----Original Message-----
From: McLauchlan, Kevin [mailto:Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:50 PM
To: Downing, David; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: Dirty trick or fair play (was: RE: Honestly -- when an SME
completely REWRITES your text ... GEEZ!)
Downing, David [mailto:DavidDowning -at- users -dot- com] revealed:
[...]
> However, that editor did something that I thought was kind of a dirty
> trick, and I was wondering whether the folks on this list agree or
feel
> it was fair play. She called a meeting with me to discuss the matter
and
> I explained it to her, just like I explained it to you. And I believe
I
> made it clear that I understood now that working with another person
was
> a whole different ball game than working alone, and that now that I
> understood that, I would never submit anything to her that I hadn't
> spell-checked.
>
> So I thought we had resolved it between ourselves -- BUT ...
>
> Along came my six-month review, and in those days, we had peer
reviews,
> rather than manager reviews. She was one of my reviewers, and had made
a
> statement something on the order of, "I was shocked by the fact that
> David turned in a draft that was full of spelling and typographical
> errors." She made no reference to the discussion we'd had in which I
> explained why I did that -- thus making it sound like an act of pure
> carelessness, or a complete lack of awareness that the document needed
> to be proofed at some point.
>
> I realize that you can argue that this was a professional relationship
> and not a friendship, and that therefore, it wasn't reasonable for me
to
> expect her to just let the matter drop when I explained myself to her
--
> that an official screw-up can be expected to result in an official
> reprimand. But I feel like she could have at least included my
> explanation in her comment.
That WAS a dirty trick, assuming that any significant time had passed
since the original egregious event, and you'd demonstrated that you had
fixed the problem in any intervening submissions.
But then, you could look on the bright side:
For the following review, you could look back to the first one as your
"points to improve" and say, truthfully, that you had improved
enormously since the previous cycle... without having had to do a thing
that you hadn't been doing since the day after the original incident.
In other words, even as "bad" as you were at that original review, you
were still valuable enough to retain. So now (at the one year or
whatever review), you are that valuable _plus_ a vast improvement. Wow!
Give that man a bigger raise! :-)
By the way, most review processes require sign-off by the reviewee;
that's your opportunity to insert your own comments and corrections.
Didn't you take that opportunity?
- Kevin
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-